Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3427 OF 2020
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.16491 of 2019)
SUGANDHI (dead) by Lrs. & ANR. … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
P. RAJKUMAR
REP. BY HIS POWER AGENT IMAM OLI … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2019
2.
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, in
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.2609 of 2018 whereby the High Court has
dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the
refusal to entertain an application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
GEETA AHUJA
Date: 2020.10.27
14:44:46 IST
Reason:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) seeking leave of the
court to produce additional documents.
2
The appellants herein are the defendants in the suit, O.S. No.257
3.
of 2014, on the file of the Principal SubJudge, Pudukottai, and the
respondent is the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to in their respective positions before the Trial Court. The
plaintiff filed the suit for injunction alleging that the defendants are
attempting to grab the suit schedule property. When the suit was
posted for the evidence of the defendants, they filed an application
seeking leave to produce certain documents. It was contended that
they had recently traced these documents related to the suit property
and that was why they could not produce them along with the written
statement. This application was opposed by the plaintiff. The Trial
th
Court by its Order dated 11 October, 2018 dismissed the application.
As noticed above, the High Court has confirmed the order of the Trial
Court.
4. Mr. R. Anand Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellantsdefendants, submits that the said documents are
necessary for just determination of the case. Due to certain
unavoidable circumstances, the same could not be produced by the
defendants along with the written statement. It was argued that the
courts below have rejected the application on flimsy grounds. He
3
submits that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the plaintiff
by production of these documents.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S. Mahendran, learned counsel appearing
for the respondentplaintiff, has supported the impugned orders of the
courts below. It is argued that the defendants are not entitled as a
matter of right to produce the documents, particularly when the
plaintiff has concluded his evidence.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of
the learned counsel of the parties.
7. Rule 1A of Order 8 of C.P.C. provides the procedure for
production of documents by the defendant which is as under:
“ 1A. Duty of defendant to produce documents upon which
relief is claimed or relied upon by him.—
(1) Where the defendant bases his defence upon a document or
relies upon any document in his possession or power, in support
of his defence or claim for setoff or counterclaim, he shall enter
such document in a list, and shall produce it in Court when the
written statement is presented by him and shall, at the same time,
deliver the document and a copy thereof, to be filed with the
written statement.
(2) Where any such document is not in the possession or power of
the defendant, he shall, wherever possible, state in whose
possession or power it is.
(3) A document which ought to be produced in Court by the
defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not,
without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his
behalf at the hearing of the suit.
(4) Nothing in this rule shall apply to document—
(a) produced for the crossexamination of the plaintiff’s witnesses,
or
4
(b) handed over to a witness merely to refresh his memory.”
Subrule (1) mandates the defendant to produce the documents in his
possession before the court and file the same along with his written
statement. He must list out the documents which are in his
possession or power as well as those which are not. In case the
defendant does not file any document or copy thereof along with his
written statement, such a document shall not be allowed to be
received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the
suit. However, this will not apply to a document produced for cross
examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses or handed over to a witness
merely to refresh his memory. Subrule (3) states that a document
which is not produced at the time of filing of the written statement,
shall not be received in evidence except with the leave of the court.
Rule (1) of Order 13 of C.P.C. again makes it mandatory for the parties
to produce their original documents before settlement of issues.
Subrule (3), as quoted above, provides a second opportunity to
8.
the defendant to produce the documents which ought to have been
produced in the court along with the written statement, with the leave
of the court. The discretion conferred upon the court to grant such
leave is to be exercised judiciously. While there is no straight jacket
5
formula, this leave can be granted by the court on a good cause being
shown by the defendant.
9. It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice.
Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the
way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural
violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party,
courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying
upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact
that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the
foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate
steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute. Therefore,
the court should take a lenient view when an application is made for
production of the documents under subrule (3).
10. Coming to the present case, the defendants have filed an
application assigning cogent reasons for not producing the documents
along with the written statement. They have stated that these
documents were missing and were only traced at a later stage. It
cannot be disputed that these documents are necessary for arriving at
a just decision in the suit. We are of the view that the courts below
ought to have granted leave to produce these documents.
6
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds and it is
11.
accordingly allowed. The orders impugned herein are set aside. The
application (I.A. No.551 of 2018 in O.S. NO.257 of 2014) filed by the
appellantsdefendants before the Principal SubJudge, Pudukottai, is
accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
…….……………………………J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
…….……………………………J.
(SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi;
October 13, 2020.
7
ITEM NO.27 Court 10 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16491/2019
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-02-2019
in CRP(NPD)(MD) No. 2609/2018 passed by the High Court Of
Judicature At Madras At Madurai)
SUGANDHI (DEAD)by Lrs. & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
P. RAJKUMAR REP. BY POWER AGENT IMAM OLI Respondent(s)
IA No. 102881/2019 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 13-10-2020 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Anand Padmanabhan, Adv.
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Mahendran, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Substitution allowed.
Leave granted.
The Appeal is allowed in terms of the Reportable Signed
Order.
All pending applications are disposed of.
(NEELAM GULATI) (KAMLESH RAWAT)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Reportable Signed order is placed on the file)